Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of Peer Review

As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, Journal of SPHERES relies on independent, objective, and constructive peer review to ensure that published articles:

• Contribute original and meaningful knowledge across interdisciplinary areas represented by the S.P.H.E.R.E.S. framework.
• Demonstrate theoretical strength, methodological rigor, scholarly originality, and ethical research practices.
• Advance understanding of education, philosophy, history, sociology, culture, economics, politics, arts, linguistics, psychology, geography, and their interconnected dimensions.
• Promote interdisciplinary scholarship by connecting diverse fields of knowledge and addressing complex human, social, cultural, and global challenges.
• Are clearly written, logically structured, and relevant to an international scholarly audience.

Your role as a reviewer is to provide a fair, confidential, evidence-based, and constructive evaluation that assists the editorial team in making informed publication decisions while helping authors improve the quality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts.

2. Confidentiality

• Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential scholarly documents.
• Do not disclose, discuss, or share manuscript content, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence with anyone outside the peer-review process.
• Do not use unpublished ideas, arguments, theoretical frameworks, data, methods, or findings from the manuscript for personal research or publication purposes.
• Maintain confidentiality of the review process before, during, and after completing the review.
• Delete or securely dispose of manuscript files and related materials after completing the review unless otherwise instructed by the editorial office.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must immediately inform the editorial office if they identify any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, including:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with any author of the manuscript.
• Affiliation with the same institution, department, research group, or organization as any author.
• Personal, academic, professional, or other relationships that may affect impartial judgment.
• Direct competition with the research, ideas, methods, or findings presented in the manuscript.
• Financial, institutional, or personal interests connected with the manuscript topic or outcomes.

If uncertainty exists regarding a possible conflict of interest, reviewers should consult the handling editor before accepting or completing the review.

4. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

A. Relevance and Scope

• Alignment with the aims and scope of JSPHERES.
• Relevance to one or more areas of the S.P.H.E.R.E.S. framework.
• Contribution to interdisciplinary discussions and broader scholarly debates.
• Significance for understanding educational, philosophical, historical, social, cultural, economic, political, psychological, linguistic, or geographical issues.

B. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Contribution to existing academic literature and theoretical discussions.
• Ability to generate new perspectives, interpretations, frameworks, or applications.
• Potential academic, social, cultural, educational, or policy relevance.

C. Literature Review and Conceptual Foundation

• Appropriate engagement with relevant and current scholarly literature.
• Strength and clarity of theoretical, philosophical, or conceptual foundations.
• Critical analysis of previous research and identification of research gaps.
• Effective integration of interdisciplinary perspectives where appropriate.

D. Methodology and Research Design

• Appropriateness and rigor of research methodology.
• Clear explanation of research design, methods, sources, data collection, analytical procedures, or theoretical approaches.
• Validity, reliability, transparency, and ethical soundness of the research process.
• For conceptual, philosophical, historical, or theoretical manuscripts, evaluation of logical reasoning, interpretation, evidence, and scholarly depth.

E. Ethical Standards

• Compliance with accepted ethical standards in research and publication.
• Responsible treatment of research participants, communities, cultural materials, archival sources, and collected data where applicable.
• Proper citation, acknowledgment of sources, and avoidance of plagiarism or academic misconduct.
• Appropriate disclosure of artificial intelligence tools or other research assistance where required.

F. Presentation and Organization

• Clear, coherent, and academically appropriate writing style.
• Logical organization and effective presentation of arguments.
• Appropriate use of tables, figures, references, examples, datasets, maps, or supplementary materials.
• Compliance with journal formatting and submission requirements.

G. Interdisciplinary Integration and Overall Contribution

• Ability of the manuscript to connect multiple fields of knowledge.
• Strength of interdisciplinary insights and synthesis.
• Contribution to broader understanding of human experiences, social systems, and contemporary challenges.
• Overall suitability for publication in Journal of SPHERES.

5. Reviewer Recommendation

• Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal editorial corrections.
• Minor Revisions – The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
• Major Revisions – The manuscript requires substantial improvement and may require additional review.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly standards, lacks sufficient contribution, contains significant methodological or conceptual weaknesses, or falls outside the journal's scope.

Reviewers should provide clear, specific, and constructive reasons supporting their recommendation.

6. Tone and Constructive Feedback

• Provide objective, respectful, and professional comments.
• Evaluate the manuscript rather than the author(s).
• Provide specific and actionable suggestions for improvement.
• Identify both strengths and limitations of the manuscript.
• Avoid personal, discriminatory, ideological, or inappropriate remarks.
• Ensure comments contribute positively to improving scholarly quality.

7. Timeline

• Reviews are normally expected within 3–4 weeks after accepting the review invitation.
• If additional time is required or the review cannot be completed, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly.
• Timely reviews support an efficient, transparent, and high-quality editorial process.

8. Recognition and Support

• Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged annually on the journal website, subject to reviewer consent and confidentiality requirements.
• The journal may support participation in reviewer recognition platforms such as Publons or ReviewerCredits where applicable.
• Certificates of reviewing may be provided upon request after completion of review assignments.

9. Ethical Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, fairness, and professionalism throughout the peer-review process.

We sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of Journal of SPHERES (JSPHERES). Your expertise plays a vital role in promoting interdisciplinary scholarship and advancing meaningful research across diverse spheres of knowledge. We are grateful for your commitment to supporting academic excellence and responsible scholarly communication.